Can there be a (mortal ) government that is for ALL and excludes none?
December 26, 2011 7:13am CST
Jamaica is currently engaging its political machinery to start elections on the 29th of this month .Needless to say that the two major political system (there is a third official party and about three other independents but that are mostly on the fringes )are campaigning very hard to garner new support.Both parties have been putting out a lot of advertisements trying to convince the populace that they are the better choice and a lot of it leads to mud slinging and very little airing of the issues. Now I dont know much about politics over the world but I have seen a little of what obtain in the US and it has led me to the conclusion that there is no one party that can lead to maximum benefits for all .Dont get me wrong I am aware that some systems like dictatorships and extreme forms of communism CAN be very supressive(and even this is a moot point cause China is doing very well)but in a discussion in which we compare apples and apples ,democracy and democracy ,I am am coming to the conclusion that no government is all inclusive .You will find that both parties have good ideas but you will also find that some pf the policy will benefit only one sector of the divide.For example even in the great America you may find that some of the policies (tax reform) of the republican government in the past might have benefited the richer sector more than the poor (I stand corrected).It is a similar case in Jamaica ,both parties have their benefits and both disadvantages . So it is my conclusion that there is no governement that is all inclusive ......What is your view..If you know of any such all inclusive government do tell!
• United States
1 Jan 12
The only perfect government is a theocracy. None of the governments you have cited have a chance of being perfect. Not democracy or dictatorships. The Bible says that 'man rules man to his injury' and 'the man who is walking cannot even direct his own steps.'
• United States
28 Dec 11
Honestly, I don't think that any of us will see a government in our lives that are fair for everyone. I don't know a lot about the government in the rest of the world, but I know that the government here in the United States is quite corrupt and that means that it is in favor of those people that have more money and not so much the other 99 percent of people. I think that there needs to be a lot of change, but it will take many, many years for that to happen.
• United States
27 Dec 11
In fact i do. I dont know much about political stuff but what i do know is no human government can accomplish what you are saying. There is however the Kingdom which will be the universial one standing to time indefinite. That is the one ruled by Jesus and Jahovah. The one world rule.
27 Dec 11
Being an Indian, I have first hand experience of multi-party democracy which can be cited as an example of inclusive governance but even I don’t think there is any ONE party that is all inclusive. As it is, we have seen that democracy is the best form of governance if the people are to carve their own destiny; however, bi-party democracy (as in UK & US) and multiparty democracy (as in India) each has its own pros and cons. For an outsider like me, bi-party election mode seems to be better than multiparty in terms of tackling corrupt practices in politics (more parties mean more corruption, naturally) but even then I feel multiparty systems are a baby step towards an inclusive government. Here in India whenever there are elections, all the parties (national and regional) put in candidates (there are about 3/4/5 or even more parties with 3 or 4 main contenders). India is a patchwork quilt of people so almost each community or section would ideally like to have their own candidate to further their cause in governance. This means that the polled votes get shared and in many cases, no single party wins a majority. Under such situations, the main party that has garnered the maximum votes will take the help of such smaller parties (which have some victorious candidates) and form the government. Such a coalition government is quite inclusive as it has members from different parties on its board; however it is also difficult for such a government to arrive at a unanimous decision on almost all issues as it has to have the endorsement of all its members, irrespective of which party it belongs to; it has to keep the interests of everybody in mind. The only way to tackle corruption and poor governance in a multiparty system is for the people to be more educated and aware; something that is still lacking in India.
27 Dec 11
Very good answer and well thought out I think you aired the issues.You taught me something I never considered but on mention found it to be very true .More parties mean more corruption .Personally too I am all for a multiparty system or at least a government formed from a multiparty system because then there are likely to be more checks and balances which prevent any party free reign to do as they please .Granted the wheel might turn slower because of the inability of the various factions to come to an agreement but that means corruption is slowed down
26 Dec 11
in an ideal family, you would have parents who made decisions that took into account the individual needs of family members, without favourtism, but that put the collective welfare of the whole family first. so, though the wishes of the individual family member would be taken into account, where those wishes are in conflict with the welfare of the whole family, then those wishes would be overruled, or limited to something reasonable. it shouldn't be that hard for a government to work on a similar principle. however a few things seem to get in the way, so that a political party tries to effectively buy the votes of a particular interest group, by appearing to represent them, or because of party political funding a political party puts the interests of those who fund them above those of the voters. the problem is made worse because people who want to be politicians aren't necessarily the right people for the job,as it tends to attract the narcissistic. so theoretically it is possible for a government to act in the interests of all, by putting the needs of the whole country above those of individual interest groups, while at the same time trying to meet individual needs where they do not conflict with the wellbeing of the whole. but then you need a politician good enough to actually do it, and thats where the impossible bit seems to come in. and of course the only way to ensure that governments act in the interests of the whole is to ensure the a sufficient number of people are watching what they get up to, and a lot of people just aren't willing to do that. so its not just the fault of the politicians, though they are to blame, but given that we know what a load of lying cheating crooks they are, we have to be constantly watching them, to see what they get up to.
26 Dec 11
Very good points .I am amazed at how similar our political cultures are .I like the fact that you distinguished between what is an ideal and what obtains now because the ideal is unattainable .I do agree though people are partly to blame for the state of the political system because they do not watch these politicians close enough and this allows them to get away with no ends of corruption
26 Dec 11
No, it's not possible. "You can please some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time: you can't please all of the people all of the time." Until mankind grows up and stops being selfish, greedy, stupid, violent and self-destructive, we have absolutely no chance for anything as cool as a government for all or world peace.